Site Mobile Navigation

Stem Cell Amendment Changes Little in Missouri

Chuck Graham, a Missouri state senator, is a supporter of embryonic stem cell research.Credit
Peter Newcomb for The New York Times

ST. LOUIS — When Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment last November protecting human embryonic stem cell research, it was viewed as a key endorsement of the research even in states with deep religious roots and strong antiabortion forces like this one.

But the expected expansion of stem cell research in Missouri has since run into political and financial roadblocks, putting the future of the research in doubt.

State lawmakers who opposed the constitutional amendment continue to fight it, introducing new bills that would bar some types of the research and suggesting that a ballot initiative to that end may lie ahead.

Although the legislative efforts have so far failed, the uncertainty has made it difficult for facilities to attract stem cell specialists, some of whom question the state’s commitment to research that supporters say could lead to treatments for diseases like Parkinson’s and cancer.

In June, a private facility in Kansas City, the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, suspended plans for a $300 million expansion, citing the “persistent negative political climate” toward embryonic stem cell research.

The founders of the institute, Jim and Virginia Stowers, had contributed $30 million to the campaign to pass the constitutional amendment.

Kevin C. Eggan, an assistant professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University who works with stem cells, said he had strongly considered moving to Stowers, but had delayed his plans.

“Everybody hoped that Missouri was going to be a good test case,” Mr. Eggan said. “It was exciting to us that stem cell research was being voted in in a state which has very restrictive abortion laws. But it has turned out to be a big disappointment.”

A few months ago, the University of Missouri, in Columbia, lost some $85 million in state money for a new research facility. University officials said the facility was not intended for stem cell research, but opponents of the research blocked the financing anyway, suggesting that the constitutional amendment would make it possible down the road.

“For a bright shining moment in time, we were moving ahead as a state to protect research,” said Senator Chuck Graham, Democrat of Columbia. “But now the other side wants to walk away, not only from stem cell research, but all research. Their attitude now is, if there’s a beaker or a Petri dish involved, we’re not going to fund it.”

Representative Jim Lembke, a St. Louis Republican who said he opposed the destruction of human embryos, is among those who have proposed new legislation outlawing some elements of the research.

“As people are educated about this issue, they come around,” Mr. Lembke said.

The ballot measure that passed last fall guarantees that any federally allowed stem cell research or treatment will also be allowed in Missouri.

The question of embryonic stem cell research has usually been fought out in state legislatures, not among voters, but supporters said the Missouri legislature’s efforts to ban the research had led them to seek the statewide vote.

Only in California had voters approved a comparable measure, and Missouri was seen as offering a picture of how a more socially conservative state might respond. California’s measure was approved in 2004 and included $3 billion in financing for stem cell research. Missouri’s measure included no money.

Other factors made the Missouri vote of special importance. It became a central issue in a race here that would help decide the balance of power in the United States Senate — between Senator Jim Talent, the Republican incumbent, who opposed the amendment, and Claire McCaskill, his Democratic challenger, who supported it and ultimately won.

Though the amendment passed, the margin of 51 percent to 49 percent, a difference of 50,800 votes (out of about 2.1 million cast), was slimmer than some had predicted. It was rejected in 97 of the state’s 114 counties, secretary of state records show, gaining most of its support in the metropolitan areas of St. Louis and Kansas City.

Supporters of the amendment outspent opponents by a wide margin. Within hours of the vote, opponents said they would fight on, focusing their attention narrowly on one element of the research, known as therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus of a mature cell is transplanted into an egg cell, which would then produce stem cells.

The debate has come down to a fight over what constitutes “cloning.”

Supporters of the amendment say they banned human cloning, which they defined in the amendment as an act that could result in a woman’s pregnancy and the creation of a human fetus inside a woman’s uterus. Opponents say the replication of cells, regardless of implantation in the uterus, amounts to cloning.

“We think it’s a false distinction to say that a clone exists only based on geography,” said Pam Fichter, the president of Missouri Right to Life. “Look, we support ethical stem cell research, and we think cloning was misrepresented to voters. We know that a majority of Missourians oppose cloning.”

Donn Rubin, chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which led efforts to pass the amendment, said that reproductive cloning was what the public worried about.

“What we protect is a very promising form of medical research that involves cells in a lab dish, not something that involves pregnancy,” Mr. Rubin said.

Some scientists and academics said they had hoped that the amendment might make Missouri a new center of embryonic stem cell research, giving the state an economic boost. Instead, it may be sending forth precisely the opposite message: that the state, despite its pioneering ballot measure, has yet to figure out where it stands on stem cell research.

Mr. Lembke’s measure failed to reach the floor of the State House this spring, but the intended outcome of the research amendment has been delayed by actions like the blocking of the research building at the University of Missouri.

“Any time you have these kinds of debates, it has a statewide impact,” said Dr. Gordon H. Lamb, the university’s interim president. “It also has an impact on people who look at the state as a whole from the outside.”

Jaci Winship, the executive director of Missourians Against Human Cloning, said her group was weighing the possibility of a new initiative, perhaps as soon as next year. Members of Missouri Right to Life have been gathering names and contributions for such an effort.

Mr. Rubin’s group, meanwhile, has continued raising money, bracing, he said, for another fight.

A version of this article appears in print on , on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: For Missouri, Stem Cell Act Changes Little. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe